Slashdot Mirror


Apple Deals with Devil, Communists

rschroeder writes "I keep thinking that this article can't be real, but it looks like it. Among the juicier bits: 'The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (Mac OS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an 'Open Source' license, which is just another name for Communism.'" Yes, of course. And I am still waiting for Jesux to be released.

25 of 699 comments (clear)

  1. Apple/Devil by NickRob · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, Apple did have a well-publicized dealing with the Church of Satan. They had a "Made with Macintosh" logo on their homepage, and they had a b/w pic of their founder with "Think DIfferent" next to him. The kicker? They were (obviously) against those things. They demanded the removal of such things. The CoSatan, being the dissenters they are, naturally didn't remove them.

  2. Church of Satan by dissonant7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, the Church of Satan, so far as I know, actually *does* (or at least used to) run on Apples. They even used to proudly advertise the fact on their web site with a parody of Apple's "Think Different" campaign featuring Anton LaVey (the Church's founder).

  3. I was waiting for this to show up on /. by Space+Coyote · · Score: 3, Informative
    ... Since it's been on every other website I regularly surf, and seems to fit the classic definition of a meme.

    There are discussions about this site on MetaFilter, a MacSlash article, a very funny Fark thread, as well as mentions on Ars and Memepool.

    Seems the tech subset of the Internet has been well and truly trolled, if indeed this is a hoax, which I am inclined to believe, given that all of the banner ads on the site seem to lead to the same domain.

    --
    ___
    Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
  4. It's a hoax by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative
    Go to the "updates" link at the top. Scroll down until you see a picture of a purple teddybear. Read the accompanying "story". Now scroll up until you see a multicoloured... "rainbow"?... teddybear. Read story.

    Laugh. There are probably more examples, I didn't have time to check.

    It's a hoax, a very clever one, but a hoax nonetheless.

    As a Brit in America, I suspect my non-American friends are reading this entire thread bemused. "Well, of course it's an effing hoax!" they're exclaiming. "It's too over the top! You Americans are {...}"

    Response: Nope. There really are people like that around here, especially in the South and the mid-West. Even many "moderate" Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education (sometimes successfully.) And moderate Christians do sometimes seem to form the minority of Christians in this God-forsaken country...

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  5. Take a look at the URL by rlwhite · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda.h tml

    Says it all, doesn't it?

  6. Re:It's a hoax - obviously by pkalkul · · Score: 2, Informative

    My favorite is the profile of contributor "Diamond" Jack Holgroth:

    "Diamond" Jack Holgroth is a Game Theoretician who currently teaches a course in Advanced Game Theory for Theologians at Fellowship University. He served our country during the Cold War as a Game Theory Tactician for the Department of Defense and single-handedly developed an elegant solution to the "Fisherman's Quandary", a game theory problem that was crucial to the winning of the arms race and that was famously intractable - until Diamond Jack came along.

    Very clever, but also quite clearly a joke.

  7. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Oh really? Christian rock exists - I listen to it, as do many other people. A few bands, some of which have gone mainstream:

    POD
    Jars of Clay
    DC Talk
    Third Day
    Petra (Older)
    Precious Death
    Michael W Smith (Well, he's contemporary, but still)

    And many, many more. Oh, and I don't listen to all of these, but DC Talk has been one of my favorite bands for many years.

  8. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by joel8x · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, the fine community at Macslash.com debunked this hoax earlier today - This was one of the greatest attempts at trolldom I have ever witnessed toward the Mac community (we're such an easy target too).

    --
    Sound waves should be free!
  9. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Informative

    is it a coincidence that Richard Paley is one of the aliases that Warren Beatty uses in The Parallax View? I smell something fishy.

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  10. Re:I feel like I've arrived... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Not to mention that it was posted here on slashdot as a troll earlier today.

  11. I'll troll a bit... and offtopic even... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    First nitpick: Actually, holyrollers that pretend to be true bible scholars annoy me. It wasn't a fig either, but rather a pomengranate.

    Says who?

    As far as I am aware, the bible doesn't say what kind of fruit it was whatsoever, and scholars have debated that it could have been a fig, apple, pomegranate, etrog, carob, palm, nut tree, grapevine, wheat stalk, etc.

    In fact, some dare to suggest that there was no actual tree at all, but that the story of the Garden of Eden is mythological!

  12. Bible belt evolution by bobgoatcheese · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education"
    I can personally attest to this. As a high school student in rural(very) Mississippi I loved it when my Biology "teachers" came to the point where we were to learn about evolution. The lessons were always preceeded with statements like, "Now, I'm not saying I believe this, or that it's at all true, but according to the state I have to teach it to you, it's up to you if you want to listen or not." I would sit astounded as half the class objected to a very fundamental concept by sleeping through the class because Brother so and so told them that, "he ain't evolve from no gosh darn ape."

    --
    How's my typing? Call 1-800-eta-shut
  13. Re:Apple/Devil - Half of the Story by Redline · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can see the parody image on the home page of The Church of Satan near the end of the page. (Don't worry, it's not that offensive.) They also tell their half of the story regarding the "Made with Macintosh" debacle.

    At least the Church of Satan really uses Macs. Didn't Apple's actual "Think Different" campaign feature Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and other people who never used Apple computers?

  14. Re: No... It's not a hoax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's an ignorant man who gains money from other peoples' ignorance and blind faith.

    Truepath.com is a free hosting website for Christians.

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?site=truepa th . om&submit=Examine

    The funny thing is that his website runs on Linux which is yet another varient of unix (yeah yeah posix blah blah) just like that *evil* BSD.

  15. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by DennyK · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, www.truepath.com is a free Christian web hosting service...so it's quite possible that this particular member is having some fun... ;)

    Of course, the author does have several other articles up there. Like the Apple one, it's hard to tell whether he is being humorous or serious in them. Half his writings sound like tongue-in-cheek exaggerated Christian zealotry, and half sound like somewhat serious arguments (though these are usually backed up only by "Because the Bible tells us so...").

    Whether intentionally or unintentionally, his stuff is still pretty funny. I hope he truly isn't as paranoid about "Evolutionists" as it seems from his writing, though... I have the utmost respect for any and all belief systems, but it's pretty sad to go through life thinking that everyone who believes differently than you do is out to get you and corrupt your soul... :-/

    DennyK

  16. It's a Chickenhead operation by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Chickenhead Productions put in a lot of work on this. They also have WhiteHouse.org and several other parody sites. And there's real depth at each site.

    I'm impressed.

    They have some cool merchandise, too.

  17. Communism, Anarchism, blah blah by afxgrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, it all depends what flavour of communism(probably Marxism) you're thinking.

    If you take the complete social-libertarian perspective (Anarchism), you would be having contributions to a community that benefit everyone as a whole. GPL'd software is not viable in a capitalist market because you're selling software that gives you no edge over someone else who's selling the same thing. If money was to be made on the software alone, the market would get flooded with the GPL'd software and the price would bottom out to the lowest cost of distribution.

    Companies that make money by providing Free Software are not capitalizing on the software itself, but the 'value-added' services, manuals, and most likely proprietary software tossed in. If they were generating huge income from the sole sale of software, we'd see Microsoft join the Free Software movement.

    Marxism, would have us hand over our code for the 'greater good of the people' - as history has taught us, a totalitarian regime would ensure this. Anarchism, it's an individual choice. But anarchism works on the ideals that we can live better by working together, but working together because you want to. Not because someone in a position of authority has forced you to.

    For more info on Anarchism:
    www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
    To determine your political standing:
    www.politicalcompass.org

  18. not bullshit. by afxgrin · · Score: 3, Informative

    umm ...

    Isn't the concept of sharing Communism?
    Communism/Socialism, it's the idea of doing things together. It's just a matter of how it's implemented is what has left the bad imagery in our minds.

    If we ever do hit the absolute extreme of capitalism, information such as recorded history, will only be availible to those who can pay for it. But that's speaking of the ridiculous extreme ... wait a second, we are commodifying water now. Keeping that in mind, sharing knowledge in the future might be regarded as some to be 'communist' in nature, and those who do so must be imprisoned.

    Hmmm ... how many people do I need to start listing for those who've been persecuted by a social and economic structure we've approved of for sharing knowledge?

    Wasn't there some kid arrested or charged for releasing some code to decrypt DVDs?
    Was there not a Russian guy arrested in the United States for code he wrote while in Russia? Had something to do with Adobe eBooks if I remember correctly ...
    Was there not a man who released code to encrypt information, and wasn't he threatened with criminal charges?
    Older examples ...
    What about Galileo? Thomas Aquinas?

    There's good reasons why Free Software can be seen as having ideals of anarchism and communism.

  19. Re:From the article... by Moofie · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's only sold as a scientific FACT by people who don't understand what a scientific THEORY is. In other words, ignorant people.

    I'm an engineer, and I don't know very many scientific FACTs. The closest ones I can think of off the top of my head are the laws of thermodynamics. Everything in science is subject to being disproved. All good scientists, by definition, understand and accept this basic Truth.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  20. Re:Obviously satire by migmigmig · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, of course, it's slashdotted all to hell.

    I was very ALOT curious about whether or not it's a hoax site. I read most of the other poo in there. Especially the "Game Theoretician" section from the silly old DOD guy.

    That's the section that made me come to believe it wasn't a hoax.

    How many people know the two formal arguments against Pascal's Wager? Anybody?

    I do. Of all the people I know 2 others, ever, also knew them before I told them to them.

    There's nothing funny in that section. There's no comedy, there's no nothing. I _like_ to think I'm hip enough on the basics of game theory that I'd get any satirical jokes in that section. I don't.

    Anybody who does, please do email me.

    I don't want to be so frumpy and humorless!

    mig

  21. Re:From the article... by GMontag451 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Because no one has ever demonstrated one instance of macroevolution,

    Observed Instances Of Speciation
    Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
    29 Evidences For Macroevolution

    Maybe you should do a little research before you make a greatly incorrect factual statement like that.

  22. chmod 666 is evil - but we host on Linux? by bildstorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just wrote a long e-mail to this guy debunking his ideas.

    I did a little digging, and found that, tada, their server is running on Linux, an open source (and hence, in his view, Communist) server. I kindly informed of why chmod works the way it does, and that chmod 666 isn't nearly as powerful as 777, and that, well, they can do the same thing on their server.

    I don't know. Being a Christian myself, these guys are an embarrasment. I know where they get there ideas now more and more. If you want an interesting read on the developments of the Church and the Jews, read Constantine's Sword. Maybe you'll understand why these guys have such misplaced views.

    --
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
  23. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's people like you that make these hoaxes the wellspring of glee that they are.

  24. Wrong.... by Wntrmute · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.... I am *so* tired of hearing this.

    You see, it's a THEORY, in the same vain that creationism is a theory.

    Creationism is *not* a theory. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. It is not predictive. There is no such thing as a "Scientific Theory of Creationism." Ask any long-time poster to talk.origins. They've been asking for one for years, and noone's ever offered one up that meets the actual criteria of being a theory.

    Secondly, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

    Sorry if I'm sounding harsh, but I see these same misconceptions all the time, and they drive me crazy sometimes.

    1. Re:Wrong.... by Copid · · Score: 2, Informative

      This depresses me. Seeing these types of arguments always depresses me. Are there really people out there whose understanding of evolution is that misguided?

      I'm only 34. I haven't seen it happen. So "we" haven't seen it happen. You must be very old...

      You haven't seen it because you haven't read any of the countless articles in which scientists have written about specific instances of observed speciation. We haven't observed wings developing in a species that didn't have wings. We haven't been around that long. We have, however, seen speciation a number of times. www.talkorigins.org is a good place to start if you're actually interested in learning about some of the specifics.

      And you have not submitted a test of evolution. Please do so.

      OK. I'll bite. Start with a colony of E. coli and select one cell to start a new colony in a clean dish. This colony should have all the same DNA as the original. Repeat this using the new colony. Now you have two colonies of what should be identical E. coli. Dump a bunch of penicillin in one of the dishes and watch the colony die. OK. So we know the original cell was most likely susceptible to your antibiotics (the colony of clones showed a significant reduction in population). Now put a small amount of watered down penecillin into the first dish and let it quickly run out. Let the survivors of the colony regenerate a bit and then start a new colony. Repeat. You'll eventually end up with a colony that's resistant to the penicillin treatment. What can we conclude here?

      Well, the original cell was susceptible (its decendents tended to die when treated heavily with penicillin). Over the next several generations, a few lucky ones mutated in such a way that penicillin doesn't bother them. Those survived. Natural selection (or at least, simulated natural selection) refined the population to contain only penicillin resistant bacteria. Neat, huh? We know that the DNA changed or all would be dead (exact copies of the parent cell). Try this test for yourself, or simply acknowledge the fact that it has been done countless times with a number of bacteria and antibiotics. It doesn't always work (depending on the organism and the chemical) but it often does. Evolution. Bang.

      Oh, so the Creationist wins points for finding only well-developed/complicated organisms in any stratum of rock. Thanks!

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't understand the example rather than assuming that you're deliberately mischaracterizing the argument. The point is that if you can prove that species haven't changed smoothly over time (we have significant fossil records that indicate that they have), evolution would be turned on its ear. Another way to do it would be proving that the earth is too young for the process to have advanced so far (people try this to little avail). There are a number of things that could turn up that could make evolution obviously impossible. None have, though. On the other hand, it's not possible to prove that an intelligent creator didn't just create things the way they are. People actually argue that the creator made it look like evolution happened when really it didn't. Argue against that. Scientific? I think not.

      How is this evolution? It is "natural selection," but is insufficient to cause speciation as no new DNA has been created.

      The fact that you, obviously a layman, have decreed that no new DNA sequences exist does not make it so. Sexual reproduction by its very nature invariably causes new combinations of genes to pop up. You can't scramble two organisms' genes together and come up with a child organism with the same genes as both parents. The string of DNA is different. New base pairs are not (necessarily) added to the strands of DNA. The strands are different, though. The result is a different organism. The "no new DNA" argument is way overused by people who haven't seen the experiments that control for this (like the example I gave above).

      Again, talk.origins is a great place to go if you're actually interested in getting some of these questions answered. If you're more interested smugly shooting down arguments that you don't understand, it's probably not the place for you.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"